Fantasy Mock Draft Part 3

[BeLeafing]

I have a 25 point difference between the 32nd best and the 62nd best while there's a 140 point difference between #1 versus #32.

PandaScores 2.0 would posit that people at the back end of the draft are just, well, drafting better. If people drafted according to these rankings--even with like a 10% variance--it would be effectively impossible for people in the back half to catch up.

Sure, and valid.

I just can't help but wonder a small bit when the ranks favour the back half, and the finalists of the last draft picked 19th and 29th respectively, that maybe there isn't as much of an advantage as speculated. I guess the lesson is that if you draft well it shouldn't matter where you pick.

 

[Canucks LB]

Hmm I wonder if I can put Nyqvist as a center.
Played it for about 4 years in the NHL, last time he was a center was 2 years ago.

 

[Panda Bear]

Well, I'm furious that Hyman is gone.

 

[donut]

Damn... Hyman and Toews gone... so close yet so far AGAIN

 

[Panda Bear]

Sure, and valid.

I just can't help but wonder a small bit when the ranks favour the back half, and the finalists of the last draft picked 19th and 29th respectively, that maybe there isn't as much of an advantage as speculated. I guess the lesson is that if you draft well it shouldn't matter where you pick.

You just have to hope that someone who's just as good at drafting as you isn't picking in the top ten.

 

[Panda Bear]

Hmm I wonder if I can put Nyqvist as a center.
Played it for about 4 years in the NHL, last time he was a center was 2 years ago.

If Nyquist were even close to as good at centre as he is on the wing, he'd be playing there. Don't do it.

 

[Panda Bear]

thanks for marino joey appreciate it

he was supposed to mine you dingbat

 

[Canucks LB]

If Nyquist were even close to as good at centre as he is on the wing, he'd be playing there. Don't do it.

Yeah for sure, He was just such a tantalizing option at this round, gonna be hard to find a center now.
I actually completely whiffed on Hyman, I thought he was taken haha
Still happy regardless.

 

[Horse McHindu]

he was supposed to mine you dingbat

You’re wrong. He was supposed to be Ray Finkle’s/Louis Einhorn’s, but Ace Ventura saved the day.

 

[belair]

Hmm I wonder if I can put Nyqvist as a center.
Played it for about 4 years in the NHL, last time he was a center was 2 years ago.

In his nine year NHL career he's taken 97 more faceoffs than I have.

 

[Joey Moss]

In his nine year NHL career he's taken 97 more faceoffs than I have.

I was gonna say I can't remember Nyquist ever being a center.

Desperate times in the 8th round.

 

[BeLeafing]

Hyman is great, but you should be drafting him under the assumption he's an excellent defensive 50 point winger and not that he's coming close to this short season's production again. I still think he's worth a pick here, just don't expect the 30g/60p pace he had this year.

 

[Canucks LB]

I was gonna say I can't remember Nyquist ever being a center.

Desperate times in the 8th round.

Life is tough, Might just go way off the grid for one haha

 

[belair]

I was gonna say I can't remember Nyquist ever being a center.

Desperate times in the 8th round.

There are still some realistic options out there, but the voting seems particularly biased towards players who produced this year on different teams.

 

[Joey Moss]

On the topic of Panda rankings, I'll admit the charts have got me looking into advanced stats more and it's fun to look at. But we're drafting teams where players would be in different situations. Someone like Tomas Tatar, who is rated highly on these charts was being healthy scratched in Vegas before he got traded to Montreal. I would imagine J.T Miller was lower on this list last year as well. We were just talking earlier about how an Ovechkin-Monahan-Laine line would never work but that's not measured on the rankings. These are the ultimate "eye test" type of games.

No issues with Panda drafting and voting based on analytics but I do have to question that method if the rankings are being turned upside down from a few adjustments. I'm having a lot more fun with this draft than the last one because I think I'm focusing more on chemistry this time around. To each their own.

 

[Panda Bear]

To be fair, I've been harping on about line fits and chemistry since the first draft. Just ask @Blinny.

I think we all recognize these drafts to be hypothetical in nature, but the best way to project how a player will do is to look at what he's been doing.

PandaScores 2.0 is just better this go round. It wasn't "a few adjustments" either but a complete overhaul.

 

[LT]

I have a 25 point difference between the 32nd best and the 62nd best while there's a 140 point difference between #1 versus #32.

PandaScores 2.0 would posit that people at the back end of the draft are just, well, drafting better. If people drafted according to these rankings--even with like a 10% variance--it would be effectively impossible for people in the back half to catch up.

I'd be curious to see what would happen if you normalized this metric. Essentially a score of "how much better than the average player" each player is. Would allow for negative ratings as well for players deemed "below average".

 

[Joey Moss]

I'd be curious to see how many goals Bjorkstrand would score on a line with Lee and Pettersson. I honestly think he would be a 40+ goal scorer. He's in the top 25 in the league for shots per game and scored at a 35 goal pace playing mostly with Dubois and Nyquist. With the space Lee opens up in front of the net and what Pettersson is capable of I'm feeling confident in that line.

These are the kind of things that intrigue me about our teams, but I imagine most people just look at the names and what they're currently doing.

 

[Panda Bear]

I'd be curious to see what would happen if you normalized this metric. Essentially a score of "how much better than the average player" each player is. Would allow for negative ratings as well for players deemed "below average".

I'm a former policy writer and a prospective architect. Any suggestions for how to go about this beyond just subtracting a league average from everyone's scores?

Or work from standard deviations. Beats me. I'll look into it.

 

[Paralyzer008]

I just took forever to finalize who I want with my next pick.

They'll be gone first thing tomorrow.

 

[Tryamkin]

pittsburgh blames their 31st ranked team on the interim drafter

 

[Panda Bear]

I'd be curious to see how many goals Bjorkstrand would score on a line with Lee and Pettersson. I honestly think he would be a 40+ goal scorer. He's in the top 25 in the league for shots per game, barely above league average for shooting % and scored at a 35 goal pace playing mostly with Dubois and Nyquist. With the space Lee opens up in front of the net and what Pettersson is capable of I'm feeling confident in that line.

These are the kind of things that intrigue me about our teams, but I imagine most people just look at the names and what they're currently doing.

Dubois and Nyquist are already good fits for him, but Pettersson is easily the best player in the mix. Lee already specialises in going net front and deflecting pucks, so a volume shooter works great. I don't remember Bjorkstrand being great at entering the zone, so Pettersson will have to carry a lot of weight to do that.

 

[LT]

I'm a former policy writer and a prospective architect. Any suggestions for how to go about this beyond just subtracting a league average from everyone's scores?

Or work from standard deviations. Beats me. I'll look into it.

Yea, just calculate this for the entire sample (every NHLer in your list), find the standard deviation, and divide every number by it. So McDavid should be like, 3+ while someone like #NAME #VALUE would be 0 or 1. Most players drafted so far should be positive by a decent amount.

One thing to do as well is plot the distribution of PandaScores 2.0 and see what it looks like. Where's the peak, how long are the tails, etc.

I'm a climate scientist (in training) so data analysis is literally my job

 

[NeoCanuck]

Olofsson is a SICK pick.

 

[OB5]

We’re number nine! We’re number nine!